On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:07 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) < [email protected]> wrote:
> > best practice is not to use singleton addresses, but always to provide a > /64 prefix. > > But, how does that work with ILA's approach of identifier management? > With the previously IETF recommended approaches in RFC5213 and even in 3GPP > architecture, per RFC3315, the network assigned a set of unique prefixes > for each MN, allowed the MN to generate the identifiers. Even CGA > addressing worked with the per-MN prefix model. > > But, with ILA there is no concept of prefix assignment. Will ILA network > now generate a identifier block for each MN? Is DHCPv6 the only approach? > > Sri, see section 6.3.2. That describes encoding the identifier in the upper sixty-four bits and using an indirection table to accommodate network prefixes. Tom If that block is not summarizable, will it not result in mapping table size > getting multiple many times? > > > Sri > > > > > > From: dmm <[email protected]> on behalf of Lorenzo Colitti < > [email protected]> > Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 8:52 PM > To: Tom Herbert <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, dmm <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for > draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Tom Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We like like to request that the dmm WG consider ILA as a candidate >> protocol for the 3GPP "Study on User Plane Protocol in 5GC". >> > > Echoing Tom's earlier comment about this: I think the address assignment > sections (6.3 and 8.3) should be reworded to clarify that for general > purpose hosts, best practice is not to use singleton addresses, but always > to provide a /64 prefix. >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
